Clicking on the "general donation" button on the ISIL website, I don't see where I can specify that I want this donation to be used specifically for Vince Miller's medical expenses.
Kevin: Just click on the donation. Basically any general funds that come in at this time will go for the medical expenses which are the most urgent. So 100% of funds going there at time are for the care. The first bill came in and he had to pay $5000 as a deposit on the account. We are still someways away from that amount raised. If, however, you are unsure you can call the 1 800 326 0996 number and do it by phone or donate on line then call and let them know.
Any hospital will help any patient apply for and receive government benefits for their care if they do not have insurance. In CA, we have Medical which picks up the costs of indigent patients. Now, you can chosse to not go there for whatever reason but Ayn Rand suggested we shoudl bankrup the bastards. We do that by accepting any and all gov't benefits at every opportunity.
to the extent that we can raise the necessary funds for Vince's proper care and healing ... we should do so. To the extent that his bills exceed those levels, I see no problem in acepting what coverage is now being given to everyone in Kalifornika anyway ...
Of course, I speak as one who back in 2002 crashed my car on a rainy morning, ended up in Trauma Center and saw Tenn Care pick up the entire bill (the hospital handed me forms to fill out with the promise of pain meds & full care if I did so -- what would your choice have been?)
I was then presented with a benefit by my church fellows & musician friends, which raised enough to replace, register & insure the car (which I then proceeded to crash a year later while trying to leave Denver coming back from an LNC meeting ... but that's not important here).
If Vince needs help replacing income or paying other bills that should be our first priority. CalCare should properly be for emergencies anyway
Folks, remember Vince immigrated (and not to get free medical care since that was what Canada had -- he emigrated away from the welfare benefit not toward it). So there are complicating factors and he is not eligible for various measures available to others.
We are raising the funds and when Vince is able to make decisions he will have to do so. We do know that he was pleased it was happening and gave his approval. Right now we can't talk to him as he is under sedation. But this is what he wanted at the time. And even if the bills were 100% reimbursed later there are other financial strains associated with this.
My heart breaks for Vince and people who are sick.
But, to be honest, this is exactly why civilized society has set up safety nets for health care and other necessities.
Libertarianism brought to the level where it eschews such necessities becomes vanishing close to barbarianism.
Part of providing such necessities, however, is paying for them. I would be interested to know how Vince progresses, and I wish him the best.
I would like also to know if this "system" works. Will the costs of his health care actually be covered by $25 donations by blog readers? If so, then I'll be all in favor of dismantling the dastardly Medicare and private insurance complex.
I'm not holding my breath. Get well soon, Vince!
Tony: The safety nets that you refer to are not there. Vince is Canadian and they have "universal health coverage" NOT. His nephew was told that if the nephew's kids take a trip to the US they have no health coverage at all even though they supposedly have universal coverage. Vince doesn't have it from Canada because he lives in the US. The US won't cover him because he's Canadian. Yet each system promises universal coverage (Canada to all, the US to the elderly). So the safety nets failed there didn't they?
We have a few thousand raised so far with more coming in. I can't say if it will be enough but then one reason the costs are so high is that his bills have to try to recoup for the bills of others who don't pay. IN addition they cover the costs of shyster lawyers suing hospitals and doctors because they can't cure everyone. There are dozens of reasons that care is higher than it ought to be because of the legal system, the regulations, etc.
And the reason we are raising the funds is because the "safety nets" that were set up for this are not working.
CLS: With all due respect, that information is not totally accurate. Insurance is certainly available for travelers and expatriates on the private market. Nephews can visit for a mere couple hundred dollars interim health care coverage.
http://www.biis.ca/e/global.html
(I am NOT advocating or selling this product, I merely googled the topic and came up with a few sites, of which this is one)
Again, Vince's situation is heart-breaking... truly heartbreaking. Nobody should have to fight for their life and also worry about paying the bills, too. Barbaric.
I understand the sentiment of lawsuit abuse leading to higher medical costs, but I would argue that covering the uninsured is at least as much a cause (actually a much greater cause) for higher costs for those of us who pay premiums and Medicare taxes.
Although I pay an inordinate amount of income tax and fully subscribe to health insurance (which I fortunately have not needed in the last 47 years), I will paypal $25 for Vince's care.
I'm all for libertarianism-- really I am-- I just don't see how it would work for huge-ticket items like health care for the uninsured, especially ICU expenses. People get sick, and hardly anyone has a few hundred thou sitting around for such "unexpected" expenses.
Tony: You are now changing contexts. The context was the "safety net" or government provided insurance. Yes, the private sector is there and does provide such insurance in those cases. But my point was that the national health scheme in Canada specifically said that you had to have private insurance as they wouldn't cover it. So we agree that there is private insurance -- it was the "safety net" of govt. insurance that doesn't exist here and that was the disagreement between us.
Thank you for your donation. I have spoken with the physician for Vince today and I fear things look very, very bad. He said we should prepare for the worst. Thanks to everyone for their concern.
Finally, Tony, you argue that freedom doesn't work for "huge-ticket" items like health care for the uninsured. Perhaps you are right. But I argue that nationalized health care doesn't do well at this either. It routinely denies people expensive care. It is good at doing the sort of thing like nose bleeds and lousy with cancer, heart transplants, etc. So the reality is that no solution seems to exist. So which does the least amount of harm. Socialism fucks up health care all over the place without solving the major problems. Leaving people free to buy their own insurance means some don't and thus they screw up for themselves as well.
If you don't want the pure libertarian solution then look at Singapore's model as a possible alternative.
I couldn't agree with you more that everyone needs to pay something into the system. Singapore's system seems to be a lot like our Medicare system, only it covers everyone, is transferable to family members and has a free market provision whereby the patients can price-shop. But don't be mistaken, this is big government.
Canada's system (and the US Medicare for elderly) is just as universal as Singapore's. If a Singaporean chose to move to California, they would be in the same straits as our friend-- unless they paid into the US system with a private insurance policy. I think it's unreasonable to expect that we will ever have a "worldwide" universal health care system. In the US, hospitals and doctors are required by law to take care of the uninsured, and costs are absorbed or passed onto the rest of us. What happens in Singapore if a visitor without insurance needs ICU care?
I'll stand by my opinion that things like ICU care and surgeries are always going to be prohibitively expensive for individuals to cover unless gov't or insurance acts to increase the risk pool.
As an aside, Singapore is leagues different than the US in demographics on age, ethnicity and such things as premature births which make direct comparisons difficult.
Tony: I disagree that the Singporian system is big government. It is far less govt. involvement than any other modern nation in the world. It is universal but 90% of the people cover their care out of their earnings. Only 10% are charity cases handled by the state. And yes, the funds are transferable between family members but more importantly the funds are not owned by the state by the individual payee. Each person owns their own funds and can leave unused funds as an inheritance for instance.
We would not want a worldwide universal system I assure you of that. It would be a disaster.
Yes, the risk pool has to be bigger, no one disagrees on that. But socialized health care doesn’t do that. It contols “costs” by rationing care in one way or another.
Commenting by HaloScan
